Jimenez Muniz v. F.T. Meat Corp.
- Ona Wang
- 1:22-cv-07402
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Jimenez Muniz v. F.T. Meat Corp., Judge Caproni required approval or a specific dismissal procedure after the parties reported settling FLSA claims.
Salvador Alberto Jimenez Muniz, the named defendants, their attorneys, and any other plaintiffs covered by the asserted collective or class claims were affected by the settlement-filing and dismissal requirements.
What happened
Jimenez Muniz v. F.T. Meat Corp. involves wage claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties told the court that mediation had resolved all issues, but the court had not yet approved their settlement.
The court said the parties could not dismiss the case with prejudice unless the court or the Department of Labor approved the settlement. They could instead file a dismissal without prejudice under a specified federal rule, but that option could allow the case to be reopened.
Judge Caproni ordered the parties to file either a settlement-approval motion or the required dismissal stipulation by June 22, 2023, or attend a conference on June 23, 2023. The order also required disclosures about the settlement's fairness, disputed wages and hours, attorney fees, and any broad release of claims.
The detailed version
- Jimenez Muniz v. F.T. Meat Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-07402
- Ona Wang
- May 23, 2023
Background
Salvador Alberto Jimenez Muniz brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) against F.T. Meat Corp. (doing business as Food Fair Fresh Market), Bronx 656 Food Corp. (doing business as Key Food Fresh), Kent Alberto Tavera, S.T. Meat & Grocery Inc. (doing business as Food Fair Fresh Market), and Marvin De La Cruz. The opinion states that the parties notified the court on May 22, 2023, that mediation had produced an agreement resolving all issues.
Settlement-approval requirement
Because the case includes FLSA claims, the court ordered that the parties could not dismiss the action with prejudice unless the settlement agreement was approved by the court or the Department of Labor. If the parties wanted a dismissal with prejudice, they had to file either a joint letter motion asking the court to approve the settlement or documentation showing Department of Labor approval. The filing, including the settlement agreement, had to be placed on the public docket by June 22, 2023.
The court directed any approval motion to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. It specifically required discussion of the plaintiff's possible recovery, the burdens and expenses the settlement would avoid, the litigation risks, whether experienced counsel negotiated at arm's length, and the possibility of fraud or collusion. The filing also had to address whether a genuine dispute existed about the hours worked or compensation owed and how much the plaintiff's attorney sought in fees. The court stated that, absent special circumstances, it would not approve a settlement filed under seal or in redacted form.
Release provisions
The court advised that it was unlikely to approve a settlement containing a general release or releasing claims that were not raised in the complaint and were unrelated to FLSA or related state wage-and-hour claims. If the parties believed unusual circumstances justified a broader release, their joint motion had to explain why. The court warned that failing to address this issue could lead to summary denial of the motion and could result in sanctions against the attorneys.
Alternative dismissal procedure and disposition
The court noted that the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had not decided whether an FLSA case could be settled without court or Department of Labor approval and then dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). If the parties chose that route, they had to file the required stipulation on the public docket within 30 days. The stipulation had to include an affirmation from plaintiff's counsel stating that the plaintiff or plaintiffs had been clearly advised that the settlement would not prevent another lawsuit against the same defendants, and affirming that the settlement agreement contained no release of the defendants. The court warned that this option carried a risk that the case could later be reopened.
If neither a settlement-approval letter nor the dismissal stipulation was filed by June 22, 2023, the court ordered a conference for June 23, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 443 of the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse. The order did not approve or reject the settlement itself; it set requirements for how the parties could proceed after reporting that they had reached an agreement.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.